Hayward Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Person-centred care was not being consistently provided across the service. For 1 person we found their care had not been planned or provided to meet their specific social and wellbeing needs. This lack of planning had impacted this person’s ability to lead a fulfilling life. We have reported more on this in the Effective key question.

For other people we found they had care to meet their needs. Care plans were reviewed regularly and contained good information on likes and dislikes.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Leaders at the service had accepted a placement for a person with learning disabilities. Leaders were not familiar with the statutory guidance for supporting this group of people. This meant care and support was not supportive of choice and continuity for 1 person. Staff had not reached out to specialist support for all areas of need.

We received feedback from 1 professional which said they felt staff did not always handover important information with each other about people’s care. They felt at times there was gaps in staff knowledge about care.

The service offered respite care to people in their local community. The registered manager told us this service had been a success for people who had often returned for repeated short-term stays. Continuity of care was provided as the service used minimal agency staff and staff got to know people well.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information could be provided in various formats. For most people at the service a larger font was helpful, and all documents could be produced with this adjustment. There were also pictorial documents available for people and the registered manager had produced some easy read documents. For example, the service user guidance was produced in an easy read format which gave people both large font and pictorial information.

People’s communication needs were recorded in their care plan with guidance for staff to know what people’s preferred communication needs were.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and relatives told us they would raise any concerns if they needed to. One relative gave an example of when they had raised a concern, staff had responded, and the issue had not happened again. Comments from people included, “I don’t have any worries or complaints, all is good” and “I think they [staff] act before we need to complain, so I have never needed to.”

The provider had a complaints policy and a complaints officer who supported services to respond to complaints following the provider procedures. Complaints received had been recorded and responded to within the providers timescales. If people were not satisfied with responses to their concerns, they were signposted to other organisations and more senior staff within the organisation.

Overall, the provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service was purpose built and accessible to all. Corridors were wide, and there was plenty of natural light.

There was a lift which accessed all floors and there was outdoor space accessed from the ground floor. Everyone had a call bell which they could use to call for assistance. People had their own bathrooms and access to communal spaces such as a bar and café area. Staff were aware of out of hours systems, such as emergency services, which meant people had access to care all the time.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. Leaders were not alert to discrimination and inequality for people with learning disabilities. The registered manager had no experience of managing a service for people with learning disabilities, so they had not sought ways to address barriers to improve people’s experiences. This meant care provision for 1 person did not take into account their age, abilities or potential. In addition, the service had not sought a formal independent advocate for this person. An advocate is an independent person who can help people have an independent voice. This meant the provider could not be assured this person had care that promoted all of their rights.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People’s records demonstrated where appropriate staff had consulted with them about their wishes and preferences at the end of their life. People’s needs were recorded and kept under review in case people’s views changed.